Even when it comes to the banks, the League’s problem is not Salvini, but ‘Salvinism’

To the Editor – I believe Cataldo Intrieri’s letter warrants only a few comments, as I consider it to fully corroborate my analysis. The description of the alliance promoted in 1994 by Silvio Berlusconi as ‘an expression of a resurgent phenomenon and a creeping fascist sentiment’. The ‘illiberal’ nature of the current government, it would seem, is also, by extension, fascist in character. And, finally, concrete evidence of ‘worrying anti-democratic authoritarianism’ – and thus, it would seem, concrete proof of this government’s fascist nature – namely the disciplinary measure taken by Minister Valditara against a teacher who had, to say the least, compared him to the Dark Lord. In truth, dear Intrieri, in our democratic state the minister has no power to sanction anyone. Sanctions are in fact imposed by autonomous bodies institutionally responsible for this, which, amongst other things, apply rules established by previous governments. That decision was in any case upheld by the ordinary courts, which merely reduced its duration whilst considering it legitimate in substance. This intervention further demonstrates just how much confusion and misrepresentation Eco’s argument risks generating.

On the subject of banks, superficiality and demagoguery. An instructive story. Yesterday, the Lega made a point of stating that it supports the bid made by MPS for BPM and Banca Generali. Nothing wrong with that – it’s perfectly legitimate – but the reasons given are interesting. Let’s take a look at them. “The Lega has never made a secret of its preference for keeping MPS, once it has been restructured, as a state-owned bank serving the local community. In this case too, the sale was forced by EU rules that aim to ‘let the market take its course’, where the law of the strongest prevails. We do not believe that ever-larger mega-groups, increasingly detached from the needs of citizens, have brought any particular benefits to account holders or to our small and medium-sized enterprises, which had fruitful relationships with local banks.” This is a very convenient interpretation. The privatisation of MPS is not the whim of a market-obsessed Europe: it is a commitment undertaken by Italy when Brussels authorised the public aid necessary to save the bank. First, Europe is asked to allow the state to inject billions into a bank; then, the condition that this public intervention should not become permanent is presented as a European overreach. And, if we wish to add demagoguery to demagoguery, we might point out to the author of the note that the ABI figures, available to all, show that in 2025, 90.4 per cent of Italian SMEs obtained all the credit they requested or at least three-quarters of the amount requested, compared with the eurozone average of 84.2 per cent. It is difficult to argue that banking mergers have led to a credit crunch for small businesses. Local banks that operate effectively (though can BPM, Italy’s fourth-largest bank, really be considered a local bank?) do so not because they oppose large mergers, but because they seek to compete with the major institutions through creativity, innovation and projects that rise to the challenges. Moreover, if one believes that bank credit is the only means by which a business can secure funding, the problem is no longer merely one of ignorance: it is that autarkic tendency that leads one to regard the other instruments offered by the market – bonds, venture capital and more – as the work of the devil. The problem with the League, if I may say so, cannot be summed up in the word ‘Salvini’, but is well represented by the term ‘Salvinism’, which, fortunately, is more evident in the statements of his right-hand men than in the governing practices of his ministers.